New Stat: User's Average Score?

I like this idea, so long as it included an user's average rDev, so that you could see how they are rating beers in general, as well as how they rate them with respect to how the community rates them.

 

This did exist some time ago, I'm sure it could happen again.

 

I like the thought but don't quite agree, it just doesn't seem like it would have much meaning. For example, someone who rates higher ranking beers lower than rAve could have the same average rating as someone who rates average/lower ranking beers higher than rAve

 

Useless. It assumes all reviewers review for the same reasons. Many do not. I for one only rate beers I like and use the site as a database of my favorite beers. Other people only rate stuff they want to avoid. And some people rate every thing they taste even if it's a 2oz pour at a beer festival. Individual Stats are completely useless, in aggregate, that's another matter.

 

Loved this feature back when the site had it, and would love to see it again.

 

I'm hoping it comes back with the redesign. It's just a neat number to know. Kind of like how OBP and OPS are more useful stats, but every baseball player still knows their Batting Average. I think it's useful if you are looking at reviews and see that someone gives a beer a score with a high rDev, you could then look at that reviewers Average Score to see if they give, for example, every Imperial IPA 4+, while giving every Lager below 3.

 

The scores on my reviews show my opinions much more accurately than my hads. My scores are so all over the place that if anyone were to judge what I like based on them, it would be confusing, and it would be tough to accurately guess what beers I like over others.

I'm all for stats though. If this were to happen, I'd probably get my shit together and review more because it already drives me crazy to see that I gave beer "a" a 4.25 and beer "b" a 4.0, yet I know that I'd rather have beer "b" any day of the week.

 

I think a more accurate stat is how much your ratings deviate from the average score. I'd be look for something like rDev +3% meaning you review beers 3% higher (on average) than the aggregate average of each brew.

 

Interesting yes, meaningful no. Some beers I love compared to their scores; and this will be true for everyone.
My top example is TG Dorothy. It is the best Lager I have ever tasted, but because it is a Lager it gets lower scores.

That said, I guess it is really no different than the other scores on here, but another way to look at stats.

 

As much as I like the average score stat in and of itself (no real reason), you should just look at the text of the reviews for the reviewer's feelings, rather than the number score. Trust me, it's much better information.

 

This. Also like the idea, however. The number is a nice short hand in the aggregate though

 

Not in the least

 

Why is this useful? perhaps the just like IIpa's Does that make their opinion on IIPAS less useful? No.

 

Again, worthless without content. You assume the rDev is because they rate every beer they drink above average. This is simply not the case. Some People ( And I'll bet thats a huge majority) Do not bother to rate beers they don't like.
Look, what I'm trying to get at here is that individual stats on rDev and overall score are meaningless without the context of WHY the person reviews in the first place. To imagine that you can wheedle out something useful by looking at a number WITHOUT READING THE REVIEW is lazy. Read the review, agree or not, pick reviewers that have somewhat the same tastes as you. Throw the Friggin numbers in the trash where they belong!

 

Somebody mentioned average rDev. The range on my revs is enormous, but I bet the average is pretty near zero. Not seeing too much utility with this one.

 

The rDev average is far more important than what the person's average ratings are across the board. Some people have all the time in the world to rate every beer that they have, which is great, but not probably representative of the majority of people who have rated beers on here. Most people have a little time to contribute to reviewing or rating beers and then which beers warrant taking that time to each person depends a lot on their personality. Many people on sites like this consider themselves tastemakers, so when given limited time, they may only bother taking the time when they find something exceptional, so they would have exceptionally high over all averages. Then there are people who get more enjoyment out of bashing beers or feeling that they are saving the community by warning them of bad beers. So those people would have exceptionally low scores. Yet people who fall into both groups may be contributing very valid reviews, so what their over all averages are doesn't really mean anything, although it could be mistakenly read to imply something about the user. But the rDev speaks a lot ore to the trustworthiness of a users ratings.

 

Liking a particular style is fine. If one loves ImpIPA's, fine. But don't rag on a nice Kolsch just because it doesn't taste like Pliny. I believe there's value in knowing others bias's. You've seen the "Why are Lagers bland" type thread. If somebody loves Bbl aged stouts, or ImpIPAs, or Sours, isn't it useful to have a clue why they gave a Cask, English Mild a low score?